Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

The bottom line is that we all want the f'ing mindless killing to stop.

I'm tempted to kick @winders in the head for blaming mentally ill people— is it a causal factor? Yes. Is it the only cause? No. Not by a long f'ing shot.

Fact of the matter is guns aren't going away. Even in my swampy backwater of a cesspool country where we either try to be white (literally and figuratively)*** or go so far the other way we fall into our own little nationalist ass-f'ing circles, both sides still adore guns, at least those individuals who aren't extremely left-leaning do. Why? This is a weak country, and a terribly insecure one given recent international happenings. Guns make people feel stronger.

And there's the whole thing about those with criminal inclinations using guns to further their own ends too.

Hell, my family keeps a handgun and a rifle at home, and some machetes besides. Unexpected for a self-professed SJW, no? I'd rather they weren't necessary, but I understand why my family insists on keeping them. Shortform answer, we have guns because other people have guns and you don't bring a f'ing machete to a gunfight when people are trying to break in to your home; those sorts of people have guns for reasons of their own, but I'd wager one of those reasons is that other people have guns too.

Personally? Hobbyist aspect aside (because hey, guns are kool) I'd be happy if guns/weapons in general didn't exist outside of pragmatic reasons like hunting for sustenance or blowing up incoming meteors. Whatever. I feel the same way about armies— while I respect the dedication and sacrifice people who don those uniforms have, I hate that armies exist because their mere existence serves to keep other, hostile, forces in check. The only way to keep people kind is by beating them over the head with it and threatening horrible violence if they fail to comply.

But hey, humans are selfish, right? f**k em, they can't be trusted. Star Trek is fiction, we're never going to be able to get along that well, might as well get used to it.


The following is immaterial to the current discussion, I just felt like talking about this because something about the current topic brought it to mind:

Spoiler

***Want to know one memory that's stuck with me for over a decade even though it lasted all of 15 seconds and I knew neither of the people involved? This happened during my formative years kinda, and it's something I often reflect on when certain topics are brought up:

One evening while shopping for groceries at one of the more popular malls in my area (farmers' market whut) I came across a saleslady trying to sell skin whitening products to a black dude. Whitening products. The guy was easily over 6ft, dressed in a polo and jeans but with arm muscles thicker than my head it seemed, the sort of person stereotypes write themselves after. The saleslady was typical for a Filipina, under 5ft even with moderate heels, slight build.

I was just passing by, but the guy raised his voice in a way that grabbed my attention. It was controlled but close to anger: "You're trying to sell this to me?!" I gave a start at his tone and looked around, trying to figure out what the hell was going on. My stomach dropped out of my ass when I saw the booth the clerk was managing.

It didn't help that I saw the clerk was trying to stifle laughter. "Well sir, I thought you could use it." The scary part is I think she meant it, she genuinely thought the poor guy needed "help".

That's the kind of "normal" I grew up with. Skin whitening products are everywhere, you get ads for em thrown at you on TV, in newspapers, on the internet. Pale skin is praised, and though more and more people are getting "woke" and growing to accept diversity, the fact remains that lighter skin is here often perceived matter-of-factly as superior. Many darker-skinned girls in my class back in undergrad would turn themselves into Oreos— their faces would be pale while their necks and the back of their ears would be... their natural colour, several shades darker. Why go through the trouble? Because they didn't like how they looked and thought they were doing themselves a service.

Dumbass outspoken racism is one thing, but this kind scares me more. I don't know how that story ended, I was running late for something and had to go. I just hope the dude wasn't too bothered by it and that maybe the clerk was given a chance to learn from it.

Realistically speaking, she probably got her ass chewed out and blames certain other people for being too damn sensitive, never mind that there's a reason certain topics are verboten to certain people.

That's been changing lately. Fingers crossed.

Why does shit like this happen? Because it's just something we've gotten used to. Is it worth addressing? Yes. Even if it's a deeply-rooted societal construct with massive corporate entities trying to perpetuate the status quo for their own ends? Even moreso then.

... Oh that's why I remembered this story. f**k the NRA.

 

European governments also let child rapists, Islamic militants, and serial gropers off for “cultural attitudes” so to hell with what they think. If someone has an issue with pedos getting pumped full of lead into Swiss cheese and wants to feed known pedophiles (in prison or through government handouts) while children starve on the street, then shoot them too. Yeah those Yemeni tribesmen did a better job of stopping recidivism than a Western criminal justice system. The psycho hothead Balkans in dash cam captured, traffic altercation shootings have more moral authority than most Western European governments because you know somebody ran the red or tailgaited or something.

Governments across the Eurasian landmass have been overthrown by one guy with a sword or a gun killing the right people countless times. Governments are usually overthrown by the people they themselves have armed far more than they have been conquered or overthrown by a civilian rebellion. Taking civilians’ guns for the safety of the government is a pitiful excuse. For all talk of ingrained superior culture, some loudmouth with a gun or a sword in his hand has changed the culture of collective humanity far too often for it to be truly ingrained. It will happen again.

Constantine changed the collective religious attitude of mankind because Jesus appeared to him as a sun dog and let him put his enemy’s head on a stick. Robspierre and friends chopped off thousands of heads to force the world to accept that their view of the enlightenment was truer than the divine right of kings because one possessed a greater organizational capacity to get people to conquer and kill. Hong Xiuquan, the Chinese younger brother of Jesus, killed 30 million people and undermined the Mandate of Heaven forever. Let’s not get into the bloody 20th century.

 

Wow, too busy for a day and miss the chance to comment on a now-locked thread. Thanks Marv for your insight. It's pretty spot-on. I hate that OJNeg decided to troll the thread instead of engaging in a thoughtful way.

---

@m17xr2b read the Declaration of Independence. Just about everything stems from that, and the Enlightenment philosophy of people like John Locke. Briefly, it states that all men are endowed by their creator … with UNALIENABLE rights … life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A person must be able to defend those unalienable rights (those are not given by any government, they are innate to all people) from those who would transgress them, governmental or otherwise.

Further, as discussed in The Law by Frederic Bastiat, one cannot have liberty without property rights, that is, the right to keep one's earned property and the benefits of his/her labor. Also discussed there is the fact that the law is force. A population of self-governed people needs adequate force to prevent tyranny.

Police can't be everywhere at once. Thugs are thugs, regardless of the law. Banning firearms just means that criminals are the only ones who have firearms. Criminals disavow the law.

So whether it's a thug, or it comes to a point where an overreaching government forgets the reason that it has the authority it does (given to it by the citizenry), people have a right to defend their life, liberty, and property.

As to "banning firearms" in America, congress has no authority to do so, neither do the states. The second amendment forbids it (and as the Supreme Court has ruled, the amendments also apply to the states).

In order to do that, it requires a constitutional amendment, which either the congress or the states themselves can start the process on.

---

Last word, study world history: ALL GOVERNMENTS TEND TOWARD TYRANNY.

There are exactly zero examples of long-term beneficent governments in human history. Man seeks to subjugate man.

 

I always been the guy who never believes in banning stuff. Because even when stuff gets banned, you can still get them if you have enough $$$. Perfect example is back when I was living in NYC. So many things were restricted/banned, yet you can get them if you try hard enough. Perfect example is cig packs. Why pay $15/pack when you can get the cart load of them if you drive all the way down to VA on i-95 and load up your van? I remember my cousin has tons of VA taxed Cigs since it would save him $1,000s if he was getting them in NYC.

NYC also has the stupid gun law that's being challenged in the Supreme Court that doesn't allow you to bring a gun in the NYC area if it isn't registered with the city (regardless if the same gun is registered in the NY State level). Very stupid law, and I hope the Supreme Court strikes it down.

My Congressman was on the radio station yesterday, and I was pretty disappointed in him not because of his believes, but he was pretty tone deaf when people from his own political party was telling him to try to do something about the gun problem. He came out saying Black Lives Matter is a hate group and didn't really admit that some of the White Racist Groups like the Proud Boys is a problem. He also stated he doesn't do town halls.

Not like he has anything to worry about, he'll be reelected next year with over 70% of the votes.

 

Not true: federal law requires an FBI background check in all state. The only "loophole" that they ever talk about is a private person-person sale, as long as the seller isn't a firearm dealer.

None of the recent shooters acquired their weapons that way.

And for a concealed carry license, Texas requires the FBI check, fingerprints, no felony ever, no class-C misdemeanor in the last 5 years, and you can't be in arrears on child-support payments. Oh, and 10 hours of classroom training and a firearms proficiency test.

There are 13 states that are "constitutional carry"…no licensing or testing at all, and anybody can carry concealed or openly in those states. (FBI check for purchase still applies).

 

Go ahead and try. Then, after you pick your battered body off the floor, read this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-our-way/201908/mass-shooters-are-mentally-ill

The bottom line is that mentally ill people are the ones committing these shootings. How are people getting there is what we need to be asking. The gun itself isn’t the problem. Is it our social media-based culture? Is it video games desensitizing people to violence? Is it boys growing up without proper male influence and role models? Once we know at least some of the answers, we can attempt to address the problem.

 

You sound like my congressman on the radio yesterday. He supports Red Flag laws, I'm saying no because I do believe there's some serious Constitution questions it needs to be addressed (due process).

 

In my post, I am not saying anything about Red Flag laws, one way or the other. I am saying we need to look at the actual root causes of the shootings. It’s a multilevel problem that gun laws will not fix.

 

Personally I don't think trying to prevent people who have mental problems to having guns is the way to go. Our Gov could be so crazy where they can say hey these group of people are banned from owning guns. After what the Federal Gov did to the Japanese during WWII, I don't believe the Gov is smart/good enough to put a limit of certain people from gun ownership.

 

I know, where is the right to life and pursuit of happiness for the over 500 school children killed in the past two years? No one seems to protect it or give a shit.

There have been over 1000 shootings over the past couple of years, only a brainwashed fool would think clinically diagnosed mentally ill people are responsible. Being weird, gullible to the point of thinking killing is justified as a sort of cry for help or attention is not an illness.

My main gripe with guns is the abuse. I'd love to have the death note and names for all the poachers of endangered animals and rich boys thinking it'd be nice to have a stuffed tiger they shot for their 20's. Guns makes it possible and I hate that.

Firearms make people forget life should be respected, children or animals.

 

You forgot to quote

 

The bottom line is that nothing that will pass contitutional muster is going to have much, if any, effect on the number of guns in circulation, and available to pretty much anyone. "Nut jobs" and criminals included. There is no practical way to know in advance who is crazy enough to commit a mass murder, with a gun or otherwise. Mandatory "buybacks" would violate the 2nd amendment, and most gun owners would not comply anyway. Americans will also not comply with mass registration regulations either as they are too afraid that that would only enable those in power to confiscate their guns down the road. "Red flag" laws are ultimately going to be found lacking in due process when they end up before the Supremes.

Notwithstanding the tears and gnashing of teeth from pro gun control people, the political will to repeal the second amendment just does not exist. And people from the rest of the world can poo-poo the idea of defense from the government all they want, but as purrin so ably pointed out that is way too ingrained in the history and character of the USA and it's citizenry to be overcome anytime soon. As with most liberties, there are costs and responsibilities that come with the 2nd Amendment, the former are regrettable and unfortunate, and good citizens (which I think is most of them) accept the latter. But the chorus of "something must be done" has not included any suggestions that will be both effective and constitutional. So I am pretty sure the costs will continue to be paid. This all leaves aside of course whether the benefits are worth the costs, which is a matter of conscience not easily reduced to political calculation.

 

Agreed and good, stuff takes time certainly, but the more time it takes the more people die. Brexit isn't killing people

The argument isn't that people want crazy to own guns, but at the end of the day, crazy does own gun in the US. That's just the way it is. Let's look at your list above:

1) Background checks should include looking into who will have easy access to the guns you're buying. If you're living with nutjobs and they use your guns to shoot people, you should be held responsible for not keeping them under lock and key.

2) The point here is bump stocks shouldn't have been legal to begin with. There's no need for those for self defense.

3) They do now, took a mass shooting to make it happen.

4) Background check should've caught that.

5) Better background checks.

6) Change the law, whether you commit yourself or not - no guns.

7) He broke the law because it was easy for him to get guns in NV.

8) This may be the only exception where nothing could've be done or can be done.

Thanks for the history lesson there, but you're not talking about anything that isn't happening or has happened state side. Again, I understand you got your little red white and blue panties in a wad and your feelings got hurt, but your tangent into 15th-19th century history is not relevant. Hell, there are more pedos here in the US than I've ever seen or heard of in Europe, by far.

Works for me.

 

It's not a diagnostic criteria for mental illness regardless. By this logic most serving time in prison for homicide are mentally ill? Crimes of passion for example, those aren't sane either.

 

Far be it from me to say the contrary. That being said, French kids don't see their schools shot up on a regular basis either. You make it sound like it's tit for tat when comparing US violent crime rates vs Europe, let's get it right - they're nowhere near comparable in very large majority due to firearm related deaths in the US.

 

First, to clarify, this is not directed at any one user. But on SBAF we seem to have a rational way of approaching things, so I will present my train of thought. I use the UK as a rhetorical example against the US only b/c I saw some data over the last few weeks:

IIRC In the amount of time the last few well publicized shootings in the US occurred, over 3x the number of people were stabbed either in London or the whole of the UK (I can't remember which) alone... The UK has stricter knife laws than most states in the US. Extend the above to any nation you can find on a map. Once you take out the gun violence, recorded crime stats show that the US actually has less violence per capita overall. Take out the bad areas in the US, and it goes way down even more. I personally believe it's b/c guns are everywhere - using only myself, if I were forced to commit rob someone, I would pick a European country where the chances of someone being armed are near 0. The US or Brazil (where guns are pretty much illegal btw) would be near the bottom of my list given that there's a decent chance that I'll be shot b/c so many people have guns.

Also, FWIW, 6/7 who get shot by handguns actually survive. This is from decades of data in the US. IIRC knives (stab to the torso, not something like I cut my finger dicing carrots) aren't actually very far off. More people also die of things like hands/feet, hammers, medical malpractice, cars, or the horrible American diet. I can't recall the last time people marched to cap cars at 5mph and 500/1000 lbs (because let's be real, this is the only real way we are going to minimize automobile related deaths) or to have a gov mandated ration of McD/BK/Wendy's at 5x a year.

If I wanted to troll, I'd call the UK the acid attack capital of the world or Sweden the rape capital of the world just like other people could call the US the murder capital of the world but I don't b/c I realize it's way more nuanced than that. I could also ask what happened to overall violent crime rates before/after guns were banned/controlled in places where such things happened. I haven't looked before, but IIRC in the UK you could get up to submachines guns (which we generally can't in the US as civilians) until the late 80's when one of the royals got shot (and survived). Are the violent crimes rates before/after? If they are worse after, why were guns not given back to the people?

On and on and on.

But in all of the above, to say that the US has a problem with guns and violence is true... but to say that the US is the only place with a violence problem and it's a huge problem because we have guns IMO is not true at all. I'd actually say many places have a worse violence problem than the US does. But IMO the real question I currently seek to understand (because I don't actually know) is what can we actually do about it? Just accept the world is a dark and scary place? (and maybe that's one reason many of us escape to audio and do SBAF?) Better understand the people who do these things (and maybe their version of fixing the world from their warped perspective is to do these things?)? Or maybe even say the world is actually pretty safe now in the perspective of overall human history?

Lastly, what many have said. All societies across all known history tend towards tyranny given enough time. The least common denominator of the threat of force/violence (which could swords yesterday, guns today, lasers tomorrow) at all levels of society greatly decelerates this. One could argue a rifle isn't going to help if a B52 comes in to bomb your house / neighborhood, but one could also say lots and lots of B52 bombing runs weren't nearly enough to stop a small-ish country with a small-ish population like Vietnam or parts of Afghanistan.

FWIW, no, I don't keep guns around me either. But if I want to be real about things, this is what I currently view as reality.

 

Marv, you did a nice job laying out what makes America different when it comes to guns.

Personally, I think we have long ago reached a point in the U.S. where mass shootings have become a public health issue. This is the only advanced nation in the world where this happens at anywhere near this level. I personally find it appalling and embarrassing that our leaders have not gotten anything done that helps reduce the frequency of these events.

I personally would have no problem with an outright ban on all firearms. I recognize that is an extreme position out-of-step with most Americans and unconstitutional. But there’s lots of room between there and where we are currently.

I’ve heard lots of ideas for ways to try to reduce deaths that wouldn’t prevent people from owning guns: assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, universal background checks, strict registration requirements, buyback programs, no sell lists, etc. Many of us are familiar with those proposals. Let’s add your community council idea to the pile.

These all seem to me like things that would reduce deaths and would be worth trying.